Casteism in the Bhagavad Gita?

 Castesim in the Bhagavad Gita? 

I have seen people trying to say that the Bhagavad Gita is promoting casteism, which is ironic because out of the 18 chapters of the text, only 10 or so have remotely anything to do with caste, and that too they don’t say anything about them being immutable or mutable or whether to beat lower castes up for minor offences and such.

Anyway, in order to tackle this we need to go verse by verse and perform the requisite exigesis. While doing so, I will be using my hermeneutical principles of Hinduism, which you can read about here: 

https://bharatasamskriti.blogspot.com/2024/03/new-hermeneutical-principles-for.html

The main thing I want to establish is Episodic Contextualization and Reality Based Contextualisation. We must in interprate the words of the Bhagavad Gita in light of the larger story and setting that it is found in, as well as in the social and historical realities of that time. 

Duty as a Kshatriya

Bhagavad Gita 2.31-38 are the first set of verses deemed as being casteist. I will include them here, except I will retranslate since most translations are not literal. 

31) Even considering (your) own Dharma, you shouldn't tremble. Indeed of a Kshatriya (warrior), no other superior (thing) is known (apart) from a Dharmic war. 

32)  By chance, an open door to heaven is obtained. Oh Partha, Happy are the Kshatriyas who obtain this type of war.

33) Now if you shill not do this Dharmic war, then having foresaken (your) own Dharma and fame, you will get misfortune (pApam)

34) And all the beings will tell of (your) disgrace. To an esteemed (person), disgrace surpasses death.   

35) That you are retreated from the batrlefield out of fear (is what) the Maharathas will think, to whom having been highly esteemed, you will (then) go to disdain.

36) Those undear to you will say speech that shouldn't be spoken (about you), while reviling your ability. What indeed is these that is sadder?

37) Killed, you will obtain heaven. Having won, you will enjoy the earth. From that, rise Kounteya, who are made resolute for war. 

38) Having made happiness and sadness as equal, (as with) gain and loss, victory and defeat, be then engage (yourself) for fighting. You indeed will no obtain misfortune.   

So basically Krishna is saying that Arjuna is a great warrior, and that as a great warrior he must fight. it is his Dharma, his purpose. He is saying that he will get only good fortunes if he fights, either in heaven or on Earth, and says that he will face dishonour if he backs out. This is pretty much a tipical warrior preptalk, something you may find in movies set in the midieval times. After all, how is this any different from telling a knight in midieval europe that he is a knight and must fight with honour and not retreat from battle?  

Objection! You can choose to be a knight, but Arjuna was a Kshatriya because he was born into that caste.

I bet a lot of knights in Midieval Europe were born in knight families and raised to be knights, yet no one would have the same objection if someone tells such a knight that he is a knight and must fight. Moreso if the knight embraced his destiny of being a knight.    

This brings me to my next point. It wouldn't matter because Arjuna embraced his life as a Kshatriya. He took pride being the world's greatest archer. Even though he was born as a Kshatriya, he had the oppertunity to renounce that role, and become a sage. One of his ancestor, Devapi, did exacrtly that.Not only that, such a path was respectable. Hence he has no excuse.of saying that he has to because of his birth as a Kshatriya. For someone who has taken pride as the world's greatest archer, and was eager to go to war against his cousin for what is rightfully his, it would be improper if he backs out. 

It is like that scene in Avengers Infinity War, where when confronting Ebony Maw and Obsidian, Tony tells Bruce to turn into the Hulk, but Bruce can't. Bruce says that he and the Hulk are ahving a "thing" and Tony essentially says that there is no time to have a thing, and pointing to the aliens, says that is the "thing". This is pretty much that, because when all has boiled down to the war, there was no turning back for the valiant warrior prince. 

Krishna creating the Four Castes

Bhagavad Gita is 4.13 is the next verse that may be interprated as casteist. 

"cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ tasya kartāram api māṁ viddhy akartāram avyayam" 

 "The system of Four Varnas (castes) was created by me, divided by qualities and actions. Even though I am its maker, know that I am the unchanglable (indiminuate) non-doer " 

One thing should be clarified going forth: the mere mention of caste and the atrributes of castes is not casteism. So just because the Vedas say that the catses came from the various body parts of the Purusha, doesn;t make it castesit because there is no mention of whetehr the caste is birth or not or whether you can change it within a lifetime. The same logic applies here, all Krishna said that he divided society into four.

Krishna also said that he made the system according to qualties and work. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the discussion of whether caste is by birth or qualities, but rather what is being said that human society was divided into 4 based on common attributes and works. In other words, Krishna decided that instead of one person doing all every type of work, there should be specialization and division of labour so that society can function more efficiently. There should be a seperate category for those doing religious functions, for those those doing politics and warfare, those doing trade, and those doing service. Essentially, he divided division based on labour, and there is no implication that which category you fall into is birth based or not.     

This chapter is actually about how Krishna is transcendental and also an ellaboration Karma Yoga. The chapter is essentially Krishna saying that people in this material creation work for some fruit of labour or some material persuit, but Krishna is above this, even though he is above the ups and downs of said creation. He merely cites the Varna system as a passing example to support his point, while also implying that he is above caste divisions or any such mortal divisions.  

Sinful Womb

Bhagavad Gita 9.32 is often quoted as casteist, when quite literally it is (in its context) the opposite. 

"māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye ’pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās te ’pi yānti parāṁ gatim" (BG: 9.32)

The translation ISKCON gives is:

"O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] – can attain the supreme destination." 

This translation is wrong. It should be along the lines of :

 

"O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth, women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers], even they can attain the supreme destination." 

Basically Sinful Birth refer to Untouchables and alike, and is not an adjective describing women, shudras, and Vaishyas. This makes sense, because Vaishyas are Dvijas, or upper caste, elligible for the sacred thread ceremony, they are anything but of sinful birth.

Now some may object that this is not much better because they are still speaking low of women and shudras and the alike. This is where my new hermeneutical principle coems in: Grouping by Commonality. When Hindu texts list things, usually there is a commonality between the things they list. So when someone says "one should take care of cows, pigs, and goats", they mean "farm animals", and it  should follow that one should take care of sheep and horses. In regards to the above verse, the commonality is that these people are seen by society, note the Reality Based Contextualization, as not worthy of salvation or unable to comune with God; it was Brahmins and Kshatriyas that historically were the ones actively involved in religous matters. Krishna is literally challenging the orthodoxy by saying that such people, lay people, from all walks of life, are able to attain salvation, not just Brahmins and Kshatriya men. 

In Speech Act theory, you have Locution, Illocuation, and Perlocution. Locution is what someone says. Illocution is what someone intends to convey. Perlocution is what the listener hears. 

In the verse in question, Krishna's Locution is "though they be of lower birth, women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers], even they can attain the supreme destination". The Illocution is "people from all walks of life, not just Brahmin and Kshatriya men can attain salvation". The rightful perlocution should be "salvation and God's grace can be obtained irrespective of caste and gender".   

This brings me to my second point, even if the ISKCON translation is the correct one, what difference does it make, Krishna is saying that such can attain salvation; it would be casteism if he said they could NOT. The Locution and Illocution is the same, except with the latter Krishna is saying "the people society deems as sinful and unworthy of salvation can infact get salvation"; remember Reality Based Contextualisation. It seems like people are tripped up by the fact that this would be a microagression. The Gita, like most Hindu texts, is a metrical text-- you have to say what you want to say with in a certain syllable count and rhythm--thus soemtimes they have to comprimise on our word choices. Not only that, the Gita was expounded in the ancient times, microagresssions and such were not a thing, and thus it is not fair to hold the text to that level of scrutiny. This is more so given that the related Bhakti Movement, that draws from the teachings of the Gita, were strongly against caste based divisions.     

  

Last Capter

The 18th chapter ellaborates on the nature of each of the four castes. These are verses 18.41-45. Here they are below, with my own translation:

41) Oh subduer of enemies, the actions of the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras are divided by the qualities whose origin (prabhava) is one's own nature (svabhAva). 

42) Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, forgiveness, knoweldge, erudition, Astikya (faith), are the nature-born deed of the Brahmins 

43) Valour, spleandour, resolve, skill, not fleeing in war, charity, being a leader, are the nature-born deed of the Kshatriya.

44) Farming, protecting cows, commerce are the nature-born deed of the Vaishya. The Shudra's nature born deed is of service.

45) Indeed delidted in ones own deed, a man obtains perfection. Now hear how one delighted in one's deed (svakarma) obtains perfection

The key word is that these works for each caste is arisen from one's svabhava. Svabhava is one's innate disposition or charecter. Some people are better leaders whereas others are better followors. Some are are superheros while some are better the guy in the chair asissting the superhero. 

This would mean caste is by qualities, but some say that one's birth into a family of a perticular caste is a physical indiciation of one's innate charecter.  So a person woth some good Karma from his past life has a disporition of a Brahmin and is thus born into a Brahmin family, and his birth into a Brahmin family is a a sign of his innate disposition. This was how people in the past reconciled a borth based caste system with the Bhagavad Gita. However, Krishna never actually enjoins this interpratation or even the discussion of whether one's caste can be changed in a lifetime. Such views are our own superimpositions and extrapolation onto the text. Even if the birth as an indicator of svabhava hold water, it would most likely be a Statement of Common Occurrence.

What about Bhagavad Gita 18.47 that says it is better to do owns own duty imperfectly than other people's duty perfectly?

The verse in my opinion is not understood well. Let me translate it:

"śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt svabhāva-niyataṁ karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam"

"Better is ones own Dharma that is meritless (ineffecitve) than another's Dharma done well. One doesn't obtain sin/fault doing action (karma) ordained by the innate disposition (svabhAva)"

This verse is repeated in Bhagavad Gita 3.35. However, let me translate the two verses that precede it as well:

33) Suitibly, even one with knowledge strives from his own nature (prakriti). Beings go to their nature (Prakriti). What can restraint (of this phenomenon) do?"

34) In the reason of these sense organ(s), Attatchment and aversion are fixed (restrained?). From those two, one shall not come to obedience/control; those are hindering to him.    

35) Better is ones own Dharma that is meritless (ineffecitve) than another's Dharma done well. Destruction in one's Dharma is the best, but the other person's Dharma is fear-calling. 

The idea is that people are willing to do what others are doing not understanding that they will find true fullfillment doing what is in tune with them. They will find misery or hardhsip if they do what others are doing. There is a reason why artisit being forced to become a doctor will end up being depressed despite having high pay. Moreover, imagine someone not qualifiied or apt or interested in being a doctor performing surgery! The "fear calling" is a at the very least an arthavada eulogizing the performance of duties that resonate to one's innate self. In a way it is also a Promotion of Order to caution pepple from trying to immate other people simply out of jelousy or insatisfaction with their own Dharma. 

The first Tinker Bell movie portrays the idea of performing one's duty excellently In the movie, Tinker Bell didn't like being a tinkering fairy, and tries to do what the other fairies are doing, untill she acdepts that she is best in her element as a tinkerer.

None of this is has an implication of birth based caste system except for the idea that people are born having a certain disposition, which then raises the issue of nature vs nurture. This is another topic unto itself. There is no guarentee that a son of a lawyer will want to doanyhting to anything with the legal field. Any correlations would be relegated under the Pressumption of Normality or Statement of Common Occurence, perhaps the ancients would call this guNavAda.